It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

UFO "dissolves" porion of chemtrail

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: wmd_2008

Who lists quotes and doesn't list their source for the quotes? That isn't very scientific. These quotes are pretty much irrelevant, I was comparing the note 5 slow motion to the p900 slow motion, why post comparisons to the iphone?
If you post the specs for the p900 it would make a little more sense.
The poster in your last quote obviously hasn't even tested the note 5 or they wouldn't have said, "I'm pretty sure the Note 5 has 240 fps slow mo in 720p". They are probably just copying things that someone else have said while doing no testing of their own.


Here you go Note 5

Looking forward to your comments on Note 5 owners comment




Your youtube video claim.

The object appears on the right above the lowest branches of the tree right at the edge of the frame PROOF of your exaggerated claim




posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Just make sure you never edit a post. It sets him on a tangent to avoid posting any evidence.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: wmd_2008

Who lists quotes and doesn't list their source for the quotes? That isn't very scientific. These quotes are pretty much irrelevant, I was comparing the note 5 slow motion to the p900 slow motion, why post comparisons to the iphone?
If you post the specs for the p900 it would make a little more sense.
The poster in your last quote obviously hasn't even tested the note 5 or they wouldn't have said, "I'm pretty sure the Note 5 has 240 fps slow mo in 720p". They are probably just copying things that someone else have said while doing no testing of their own.


Here you go Note 5

Looking forward to your comments on Note 5 owners comment




Your youtube video claim.

The object appears on the right above the lowest branches of the tree right at the edge of the frame PROOF of your exaggerated claim


Really, you post a comment from a forum as a qualified opinion on the video quality? I thought that 720p is good for slow motion. How does the p900 compare?
You haven't proven anything, I already explained why I put "ground" in the title and not "close to the ground". The object could have very well been on the ground before it came into the frame, you can't prove that it wasn't.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

It's a bit hypocritical if you to demand evidence from someone when you haven't offered ANY evidence of chemtrails.

Where's your EVIDENCE?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: wmd_2008

Just make sure you never edit a post. It sets him on a tangent to avoid posting any evidence.


Not a tangent, I just can't help but to lmao at you not being able to write 2 line comments without finding something to edit. OCD possibly?
I would like to see if you could even define what evidence and absolute evidence are. Let's see it.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

Nice deflection!

Still, it's not evidence of chemtrails, is it?

Where is that evidence? Oh yeah, you don't have any.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

Nice deflection!

Still, it's not evidence of chemtrails, is it?

Where is that evidence? Oh yeah, you don't have any.


How can you logically expect anyone to provide evidence when you will not define what evidence is?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

Seriously? Use a dictionary.

Are you going to post some evidence now?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

Seriously? Use a dictionary.

Are you going to post some evidence now?


Well don't let my comments about your edits mess up your response time, we wouldn't want that.
Evidence is subjective, does it say that in the dictionary? That is why I need to know what you consider to be evidence. It is all based on your opinion for it to be accepted evidence by you.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

Oh look. Still no evidence of chemtrails.

Thank you so much for convincing us all that they exist.

Oh. Wait. You didn't do a thing.

All of your ramblings of UFOs and chemtrails and all you've got is a blurry bug and a contrail. It's hilarious!



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

Oh look. Still no evidence of chemtrails.

Thank you so much for convincing us all that they exist.

Oh. Wait. You didn't do a thing.

All of your ramblings of UFOs and chemtrails and all you've got is a blurry bug and a contrail. It's hilarious!


I showed that you have horrible depth perception and poor observation skills. It's not my job or agenda to convince you of anything. Even if you did agree with me on anything, you would just go back and edit your post into a disagreement. lmao



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

You've done no such thing. You just disagreed with me. That's hardly conclusive of anything, considering I'm not the only one that disagrees with you.

You seem to think that all we need to do is take your word for it that there's chemtrails. Sorry kid, but it doesn't work like that.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

You've done no such thing. You just disagreed with me. That's hardly conclusive of anything, considering I'm not the only one that disagrees with you.

You seem to think that all we need to do is take your word for it that there's chemtrails. Sorry kid, but it doesn't work like that.


No, I proved that you have no depth perception with this video. www.youtube.com...
You wrote that the object was just a few feet in front of the camera which is absolute proof that you have poor observation skills. You are the only one that is arguing that the object was just a few feet away. If you didn't have that power pole to deal with, you could have gotten away with your horrible observation. Why would I want you to take my word on anything? Then we wouldn't have anything to argue about. The argument helped you to learn that you need to work on your video analysis before making claims and posting incorrect comments.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

Oh look. Still no evidence of chemtrails.

It's pretty obvious you don't have anything. If you did you would have posted it the first chance you got.

The only reason you're here is to push your lousy YouTube channel.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: DerekB

Oh look. Still no evidence of chemtrails.

It's pretty obvious you don't have anything. If you did you would have posted it the first chance you got.

The only reason you're here is to push your lousy YouTube channel.


That sounds like a theory to me. Do you have evidence to support your theory?



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

The theory that chemtrails don't exist?

Yeah. I do. Based on the overwhelming lack of evidence.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DerekB

Your TITLE is shape changing ufo taking off from ground, NOT may have taken off or has just taken off, YOU say it may have been on the ground just before entering the frame it could easily have been 10 feet higher as well.

A DISHONEST title to attract the gullible


I DON'T really care how the P900 compares your phablet is NOT the ideal equipment to prove your claims.



posted on Nov, 1 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: DerekB

Your TITLE is shape changing ufo taking off from ground, NOT may have taken off or has just taken off, YOU say it may have been on the ground just before entering the frame it could easily have been 10 feet higher as well.

A DISHONEST title to attract the gullible


I DON'T really care how the P900 compares your phablet is NOT the ideal equipment to prove your claims.


No, that isn't the title. It looked to me like it was taking off from the ground, you can't prove that it wasn't. The main point is that it was a ufo near the ground and rising upwards as if it was taking off or something. It certainly wasn't flying downwards towards the ground. It's not dishonest to state how something appears. It would be dishonest to see it flying upwards and titling the video, "ufo descends and lands on the ground".
What claims need to be proven and what equipment needs to be used? What do you have against the note 5?
You obviously care about how note 5 compares to other cameras or you wouldn't have used a forum about the iphone 6 to compare it. You are probably a iphone owner, aren't you, and a p900 owner? If the phone has better quality in slow motion than a p900, I think that is pretty good reason to admit the note 5 has a good camera.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Sorry but YOU typed the title that appears under your video


The iphone comments were from the Note5 owners I didn't get them from an iPhone forum.


Do you seriously think a fixed lens wide angled camera is suitable for your claimed high altitude objects
:

I am a Samsung Galaxy owner phone & tablet NO Apple products.

I also have mention 70-300mm lens twice a clue that I have a DSLR which is a Sony so no Nikon either.

edit on 2-11-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Sorry but YOU typed the title that appears under your video


The iphone comments were from the Note5 owners I didn't get them from an iPhone forum.


Do you seriously think a fixed lens wide angled camera is suitable for your claimed high altitude objects
:

I am a Samsung Galaxy owner phone & tablet NO Apple products.

I also have mention 70-300mm lens twice a clue that I have a DSLR which is a Sony so no Nikon either.


I am sorry that my video title offends you. lol
It doesn't really matter whether it was a note or an iphone forum, it was from a forum. Who the hell posts quotes from a forum to support their point?
What do you think the best camera is and why is my phone incapable of recording video up to your standards?
What do you have against apple?
Why did you buy the camera that you have?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join